Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40012022›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2025

The global prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the adult population: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tigist Gashaw, Tesfaye Assebe Yadeta, Fitsum Weldegebreal, Lemma Demissie, Abera Jambo, Nega Assefa

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tigist GashawSchool of Pharmacy, College of Health Medical Science, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia. yekalabel@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4419-739X
Tesfaye Assebe YadetaSchool of Nursing, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Fitsum WeldegebrealSchool of Medical Laboratory Sciences, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Lemma DemissieSchool of Public Health, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Abera JamboSchool of Pharmacy, College of Health Medical Science, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.
Nega AssefaSchool of Nursing, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotic self-medication (ASM) is when a person takes antibiotics without a prescription or consulting a healthcare professional. These practices contribute to the misuse of medicines and antibiotic resistance which is a growing global health threat that can lead to longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality rates. Though various studies have been conducted on ASM in different countries, there has not yet been a systematic review that comprehensively assesses the problem in the entire globe. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the global pooled prevalence of antibiotic self-medication and the reasons for its practice.

methodA systematic search of electronic registers and databases was conducted on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and gray literature including institutional repositories, and national health databases. It used carefully selected keywords and indexing terms in the past ten years. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical checklist extracted relevant data after appraisal. Narrative analysis was used for descriptive data while Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Software was used to analyze quantitative data. Statistics were used to look for heterogeneity, publication bias, and correlations. Sensitivity tests and sub-group analysis were employed to compare outcomes. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases.

resultsSeventy-one studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number of participants was 63,251 with sample sizes ranging from 110 to 15,526. In primary outcomes, ASM ranged from 0.65 to 92.2%. The pooled prevalence of ASM globally was 43.0% (95% CI: 38.0, 48.1%). A high degree of heterogeneity across studies was shown with I

conclusionASM practice was higher among African and student users. The previous successful experience was the most frequent reason reported. Educational level, gender, and age were often mentioned as predictor factors. Hence, designing interventional approaches that consider the different burdens among the target population and tackle the reasons for the practices might benefit averting antimicrobial resistance.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsGlobal HealthSelf MedicationAdultHumansPrevalenceAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticsGlobalMeta-analysisPooled prevalenceSelf-medicationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40012022
PMCPMC11863577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.